Abortion

[Madhuri]

So what? we should go with what the facts are as we know them, even if they could change.

I go with what I think is fact, which is based on scientific discovery, documented cases and real life experience.

 

[Atomist]

I go with what I think is fact, which is based on scientific discovery, documented cases and real life experience.

which also includes the fact that fetuses don't have a nervous system until like the 16th week and can't feel pain until the 23rd and that >90% of fetuses that are aborted are in the first trimester well before there is any sentience.

Ultimately fetuses aren't human beings and thus shouldn't be treated as such... and even if fetuses were human beings it still would be morally permissible to have an abortion because no human can use another human against their will.

 

[Madhuri]

which also includes the fact that fetuses don't have a nervous system until like the 16th week and can't feel pain until the 23rd and that >90% of fetuses that are aborted are in the first trimester well before there is any sentience.

I just gave an example on the previous page about the baby that was born after only 5 months. It was a healthy baby.

 

[Madhuri]

Ultimately fetuses aren't human beings and thus shouldn't be treated as such... and even if fetuses were human beings it still would be morally permissible to have an abortion because no human can use another human against their will.

But they can kill them against their will...

 

[Atomist]

But they can kill them against their will...

you have to demonstrate that they have a will first and that killing them would be against that will... good luck with that. But I'll even grant it for the sake of argument that it doesn't even make a difference since a persons rights ends once it infringes on another persons rights and all humans have the right to exert control over their body. Including women that are pregnant.

The violinist thought experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8f4sz0jStE&feature=channel_page

 

[Madhuri]

Penumbra,
just to clarify, the baby was born at five months but of course it was kept in the NICU until it was safe to take him home.

 

[Atomist]

Penumbra,
just to clarify, the baby was born at five months but of course it was kept in the NICU until it was safe to take him home.

so abortions don't necessarily kill babies that are 5 month old or older... so then abortions should still be morally permissible in such a case.

 

[Madhuri]

you have to demonstrate that they have a will first and that killing them would be against that will... good luck with that. But I'll even grant it for the sake of argument that it doesn't even make a difference since a persons rights ends once it infringes on another persons rights and all humans have the right to exert control over their body. Including women that are pregnant.

Rights are given to people by people. They aren't universal law.

 

[Madhuri]

so abortions don't necessarily kill babies that are 5 month old or older... so then abortions should still be morally permissible in such a case.

What?

 

[Atomist]

Rights are given to people by people. They aren't universal law.

right... because there is no universal law

What?

if the argument that abortions is wrong because it terminates the life of a human, then you point out that a 5 month fetus survived an abortion then the abortion doesn't necessarily terminate the life of a human and thus should be permissible since the woman's right to exert control over her body. Until you demonstrate that she doesn't have such a right your argument that abortion is wrong is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Madhuri]

if the argument that abortions is wrong because it terminates the life of a human, then you point out that a 5 month fetus survived an abortion then the abortion doesn't necessarily terminate the life of a human and thus should be permissible since the woman's right to exert control over her body, and until you demonstrate that she doesn't your argument that abortion is wrong is fundamentally flawed.

It didn't survive an abortion, it survived being born at five months.

Lol, how could a baby survive an abortion?

 

[Atomist]

It didn't survive an abortion, it survived being born at five months.

Lol, how could a baby survive an abortion?

fine since you want to play word games... then a women can terminate a pregnancy at any period in the pregnancy, but not intentionally kill the fetus.

 

[Madhuri]

right... because there is no universal law

I don't understand how this statement helps your argument.

 

[Madhuri]

fine since you want to play word games... then a women can terminate a pregnancy at any period in the pregnancy, but not intentionally kill the fetus.

What are you talking about???

She didn't have an abortion! I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Atomist]

I don't understand how this statement helps your argument.

It doesn't help your argument either

What are you talking about???

She didn't have an abortion! I don't understand what you are saying.

I'm arguing that a women can terminate a pregnancy at any period of time... but not intentionally killing the fetus. So it would be morally permissible for a women to remove the fetus for her body, but allow it to live outside of her body if it can and if it can't then it dies, because she's not obligated to save the fetus/human's life.

 

[Madhuri]

It doesn't help your argument either

It's irrelevant to my argument. So we'll let this fizzle.

I'm arguing that a women can terminate a pregnancy at any period of time... but not intentionally killing the fetus.

Ok, let me see if I have this correct...you are saying that because a fetus can survive at five months that a woman can simply go through premature labour instead of having an abortion?

 

[Atomist]

Ok, let me see if I have this correct...you are saying that because a fetus can survive at five months that a woman can simply go through premature labour instead of having an abortion?

even if fetuses were human beings it still would be morally permissible to have [terminate a pregnancy] because no human can use another human against their will.

If you want to demonstrate how it's morally permissible to allow human to use another human's body against their will, I'm willing to hear it.

 

[Madhuri]

If you want to demonstrate how it's morally permissible to allow human to use another human's body against their will, I'm willing to hear it.

Like I said, we give each other rights. It isn't a universal law that a woman should be able to kill her child because it's dependent on her body for survival.

Ok, I'm watching the youtube vid you posted.
The first problem I find with Thomson's example is that this blood hook-up seems equivalent to a rape case. It was forced against the woman's will to be hooked up. How can this relate to a normal case of a woman having consensual sex and the baby being born of her body, not coming from some external source?

I would almost argue that consensual sex is a type of consent, knowing the risks.

(And hey, maybe the foetus should have a right to not be conceived in the first place)

There is another problem with Thomson's argument, and that is that the example used involves a person whose life is being saved through the use of the woman's body. The foetus is in a different situation. It is created from the woman's body. For Thomson's point to be relevant, the case must be that the saving of the foetus' life is at stake and not that the taking of it's life is at stake (taken from Brody, 1975).

 

[Atomist]

Like I said, we give each other rights. It isn't a universal law that a woman should be able to kill her child because it's dependent on her body for survival.

Of course she doesn't have the right to kill her child because she is dependent of her body. She has the right to not allow anyone to use her body against her will, even if such a consequence is potentially the death of an individual.

Ok, I'm watching the youtube vid you posted.
The first problem I find with Thomson's example is that this blood hook-up seems equivalent to a rape case. It was forced against the woman's will to be hooked up. How can this relate to a normal case of a woman having consensual sex and the baby being born of her body, not coming from some external source?

I would almost argue that consensual sex is a type of consent, knowing the risks.

YouTube - SisyphusRedeemed's Channel
his response to objections

(And hey, maybe the foetus should have a right to not be conceived in the first place)

that incoherent since the fetus doesn't exist before it's conceived... how can something that doesn't exist have any rights.

There is another problem with Thomson's argument, and that is that the example used involves a person whose life is being saved through the use of the woman's body. The foetus is in a different situation. It is created from the woman's body. For Thomson's point to be relevant, the case must be that the saving of the foetus' life is at stake and not that the taking of it's life is at stake (taken from Brody, 1975).

I'm struggling to see how being created from a woman's body makes it a difference. Besides it doesn't matter since if you just terminate the pregnancy by removing the fetus without actually killing it (ie removing it from the mother while it's alive) your not taking it's life anymore than removing the violinist while it's still alive is killing it. I don't see the dis-analogy.

 

[Madhuri]

I'm struggling to see how being created from a woman's body makes it a difference. Besides it doesn't matter since if you just terminate the pregnancy by removing the fetus without actually killing it (ie removing it from the mother while it's alive) your not taking it's life anymore than removing the violinist while it's still alive is killing it. I don't see the dis-analogy.

It does make a difference if you use Thomson's argument. It is not an equivalent situation.

I don't think that your idea here would be accepted by society since the foetus is at high risk before a certain age. If it doesn't die, it's still at risk of having developmental issues. I can't see voluntary premature birth becoming legal...